I think that the more public we are the better. Using Google products
is not in and of itself a terrible idea, at least in the beginning we
can take advantage of their infrastructure and free services. There's
a few reasons we are powerful if we do everything transparently,
because we must be the change we want to see. We must not be afraid of
the world looking at the minutia of our discussions and debates. We
must not be afraid of them peering into our financial books.

If Homeland Security subpoenas Google for our information, what do
they have? Nothing but ideas and peaceful activists. They won't try to
round us up, that would be quite absurd. Together we are many and we
are strong. With no leader there is no one to pressure or pay off.
They have no defense against such a decentralized organization.

The more public we become, the easier it will be for the masses to see
what we truly stand for, rather than the image portrayed by the media.

Let the sunshine flow on everything!

Frank Grove

On Oct 18, 2:21 pm, Sean McKeown <s_mcke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Considering I don't code, it's the very least I can do for the group, try and keep you informed. I also tend to hang out at the Media and Info desks a lot while doing my thing for Security, so I am actually also the only reason new people keep signing up to the Internet Working Group, because of everyone at the info desks I was the only one who knew you existed thanks to spending three days trying to run you down and find out this was a thingie. :)
>
> Every little bit counts though. If server space, a new website, hardware, software rights or anything else needs to be procured, I can try and help explain how to get a budget through the General Assembly, not that I have ever tried yet - been with OWS since this time last week, it ain't exactly like I have anything important enough to go before the assembly yet, mostly just been trying to figure out whether things work, and if so, how.
>
> -- Sean McKeown

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sean McKeown <s_mcke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Finance has an account with Amalgamated Bank that money is being collected into, and sponsored for a tax-free exempt status at that allows it to collect funds electronically. The Finance group works fairly transparently and at the behest of the General Assembly, and finances are distributed to Working Groups via introduction of a financing request to the GA to vote on. Presently the only other way to get money out of Finance is to purchase something at the behest of a Working Group and present a receipt to them; which group you are with, what you bought, etc. is taken down before the money is paid out from the collected funds. Whether there is a difference between Occupy Wall Street and the General Assembly is a distinction without a difference at this point, I think, as far as holding monies is concerned, and as far as I understand people are working very hard to be excellent in this regards, as the Finance group is carefully documenting all financial input and output according to something called Generally Accepted Accounting Principals or GAAP, which is the proper way to do it.
>
> If you have a need that can be accomodated by budgeted funds, you simply have to get that request on-stack at the GA and have it pass.
>
> -- Sean McKeown

> To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com
>
> To echo the echoed sentiment about privacy and openness;
> I think it is important that all finances be posted to the GA site.
> If services such as livestream, webspace, and equipment are being purchased we need to know where the money came from. Is the GA fund used by the GA in accordance to the concensus of the people? Who controls the money? when there are no more people in Zucotti park, does the GA retain all of that money? Or, does OWS have an account that it is using? If we in here are at all unclear I can only imagine that there are people outside the movement scrutinizing and wondering as well.
>
> chaz
>

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM, felipe ribeiro <felip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to echo this sentiment. Not that what we're doing is not of interest to those in power, but that we have nothing to hide. On the contrary, we are law enforcement, in the truest sense of the term. While getting off corporate networks is great, I would disagree with the sentiment that privacy of any kind is needed with regards to our strategies, intentions, and actions. (care should be taken for identities of people who live in areas where they could be abducted by authorities, etc, but assuming the USA in 2011 here).
>
> On the contrary, we should be walking the walk with regards to publishing as much as possible about everything we are doing. This is crucial. We have NOTHING to hide, and open source isn't just a means, it's the objective. It is what can create an alternative model of governance, so let's start now. Disclose everything.
>
> felipe
>

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Chaz Cheadle <cchea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mary (not one of those Koches!),
> I agree with you 100%!
> For the promotion of FLO initiatives, we should move off Google applications, but for privacy/security concerns we have nothing to hide, and couldn't if we wanted to. The US government has this thing called the FBI and another called the Patriot Act.
>
> If the corporations do see us coming- let them tremble.
>
> chaz
>

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Flameproof Witch <flameproofwitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Believe me, we are not so dangerous that corporations are spying on us
> full-time. I use google groups, google apps, private Facebook groups.
> Trying to come up with secure stuff is wasting time.
>
> Censoring and moderating have no place here. I want to debate anyone
> who says they do.
>
> I guess lots of you are new to blogging, etc.
>
> Mary Koch, not those Koches